Now, are you of the belief that Hussein voluntarily complied with the U.N., Presidents Bush, Clinton, and Bush? Are you of the belief that Hussein was not a destabilizing factor in the middle east? If you are of that belief you should therefore be in favor of restoring Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq and letting mass graves continue. If you are not of this belief, then I'm not sure why you are making points that sound like Hussein was misunderstood and was not a threat.
I was always of that opinion. I was of that opinion back in 1986, when we were sending troops to aid the illegal campaign by the Iraqi and Kuwaiti govts to sink civilian shipping (the so-called "tanker war.") Kuwait was Iraq's ally, then, of course. So was the US, and the British govt was giving them special aid to build a chemical facility ...
If you are of that belief you should therefore be in favor of restoring Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq and letting mass graves continue.
But why do you think that any new government that we install is going to be any better? Do you think that the violence of war is likely to democratise Iraqi society. Or that the people who supported Sadaam for so many years are "good pickers" of govt leaders? There are no proposals for a peaceful govt in Iraq, and Daniel Pipes is already suggesting that the country be handed over to a "strong-man" figure for a "transition" period.